SUNG ILL KIM; JUNG SUK KIM, a.k.a. Jung Suk Chun; YOUNG WOO KIM v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

11-71554Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit21.12.2012

Gesamter Gesetzestext

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUNG ILL KIM; JUNG SUK KIM, a.k.a.
Jung Suk Chun; YOUNG WOO KIM,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71554
Agency Nos. A075-624-413
A075-624-414
A075-624-415
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Sung Ill Kim and family, natives and citizens of South Korea, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion
to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse
FILED
DEC 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-71554 2
of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions of
law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived
any challenge to, the BIA’s dispositive determination that their motion to reopen is
time- and number-barred and that they do not qualify for equitable tolling of the
time and numerical limitations. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a
party’s opening brief are waived).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioners’ remaining contentions are rejected.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.